Define "end of the world". The problem indeed is that we don't have computer models accurate enough to predict what will happen. A change of half a degree over the next hundred years isn't too worrying. But a change of 2.5 degrees shifts the wheat belt into Canada.
The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by framing the problem on a geological scale.
I appreciate your concession that 0.5 deg isn't worrying. I wonder about your 2.5 degree "wheat belt" statement, though.
As somebody who has personally worked on wheat farms in Texas and in Alberta, (these two places, as you may know, have a wide temperature variation between them) I have to say the science behind this statement seems already empirically refuted.
I would submit to you that any extra wheat production you may see in the central US is due to topographical (it's flat), nutritional (good soil), and cultural (daddy was a wheat farmer) influences, more than any propensity of wheat for that exact temperature, as evidenced by the successful wheat farming americans and canadians from Texas to central Alberta)
Different varieties of wheat are adapted to different conditions and some are more productive than others. Ultimately, wheat is still a plant and it still needs water and sun to grow. The climate models suggest that as temperature goes up, midwest droughts will get worse. Natural systems are not orthogonal. A rise in temperature will cause more rainfall in some areas and less rainfall in others.
While we're at it... as you said, wheat is not too finicky. Corn? More finicky. Wonder what will happen to corn. It needs hot, humid summers with just the right amount of rain and sun. When you look at the map from the link, it is pretty apparent there is a big hole in the middle of the "wheat" belt. Hmm I wonder what we grow there? ;)
I wonder where, if at all, that hole is going to move if we have a drier midwest as the admittedly crude climate models predict. And I wonder how a change in climate will impact the current wheat growing regions in terms of rainfall.
Your comment makes great intuitive sense, but I don't think it is quite so clear cut.
Remember, it is a 2.5 degree global temperature shift being discussed, not a 2.5 degree shift in Canada's temperatures. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 is, so the effect of more CO2 is much less pronounced in the lower latitudes. From what I have heard, a 2.5 degree shift in global temperature average caused by increased CO2 would translate into a much larger shift in e.g. Canada's temperatures.
I really was trying to stay out of the GW argument specifically. My intent in the response above was just to point out that the WSJ author seems to be assuming people already know the negative side. So it wasn't that he was painting a rosy picture it's just that he was trying to provide supplemental information to what people have already heard.
That said, if you're curious, my problem with GW has always been the focus on the cause and not the effect. I don't have a problem with us trying to do everything we can not to change Earth's enviornment. In general I think it's a good idea for humans to make as little an impact on nature as we can in going about our day.
But at the same time it's a proven fact that our planet makes dramatic shifts in it's climate even without our influence (Ice Age for example). So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not.
Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place.
So basically my opinion on GW has always been that, since we know climate change is coming no matter what, humanity should work on preparing itself for climate change's effects regardless of who or what causes it.
So the reality is climate change is coming whether we cause it or not.
And it might come quite suddenly whether we cause it or not. And it might do the opposite of what we expect.
Looking back through the geologic record, the climate has done all sorts of interesting things -- all without our help.
As a general observation not connected to the parent, the use of cellular automata techniques in modeling is really very much in its infancy. I'm really surprised that posters to a hacker board wouldn't already know that.
Beyond that GW is not proven beyond a doubt so if it happens not to be true we'll have spent all our time trying to stop causing something that we were never causing in the first place.
You don't believe in the concept of insurance, do you?
The author is right on that it isn't the end of the world, per se, but he dodges the question of what small changes will do to our civilizations, by framing the problem on a geological scale.